There is an episode of the series “Black Mirror” entitled “Shut Up and Dance”. In it, a teenager named Kenny is secretly recorded by his laptop webcam while doing something embarrassing. The person behind the recording threatens to release the video unless Kenny follows a series of increasingly serious instructions—including participating in a crime. This is a nightmare scenario that might be turning into reality institutionally through government proliferation.
Libertarians are committed to privacy. We adamantly oppose a surveillance state in which our private information and attributes are for sale everywhere. I am a Libertarian. I also support the ability of law enforcement to get evidence which can exonerate the innocent and catch the criminal.
Cameras can be an effective way to get conclusive evidence. An alternative is to have a Soviet style KGB with an army of police and highway patrol spying on everyone. This would be a Big Brother privacy concern, but also a heavy burden on taxpayers compared to the use of cameras. What makes camera systems different is that automated logging systems indiscriminately record essentially everything they see into a searchable database, without any individualized suspicion.
The job of law enforcement can be inconvenient and frustrating. It has to be. I don’t want police to have stupid impediments to catch the bad guys, but a warrant is the cost of doing business. It may be inconvenient, but it is a requirement.
The case of Chrisanna Elser in September 2025 provides an interesting case. Using Ring and Flock cameras, police charged her with theft of a package of a homeowner’s front porch. However, she used additional Flock footage, Google Location Timeline, and other digital data to prove she was not there. Cameras can mislead us and exonerate us. The more government relies upon automated surveillance as evidence, the more important it becomes that citizens have meaningful access to contradictory evidence.
There is also the case of the Ring camera “Search Party” feature that was advertised during the Super Bowl in February 2026. It was sold as a way to find lost dogs. Concerns grew that this feature could become a neighborhood-wide surveillance system, with a planned integration with Flock. While Ring maintains that the system cannot search people, a leaked internal email revealed Ring founder Jamie Siminoff envisioned Search Party expanding beyond finding lost pets, including using the technology to address neighborhood crime. The public backlash terminated the Flock partnership.
How can cameras be used properly?
- On your private property (business, house) you have the right to protect your property. Many people have cameras installed to protect their property. However, we must remember that when Ring introduced “Search Party” to help find lost dogs, it could also be used for law enforcement to find people. A camera does not become government property just because it points at the street. Private citizens should be free to operate security cameras on their property, including cameras that incidentally capture public areas. Government access to those recordings should require the same constitutional justification that would apply to other privately held evidence. You can look at the data your collected, but if government wants the data they can get a warrant. Texans should be able to use security cameras on their property without unknowingly turning their streets into government-searchable surveillance zones.
- We also have cameras on roads. Some cameras can show who ran the red light and caused an accident, or who stole your car. I do not support creating a permanent history of innocent Texans. Data should be available for a serious crime when police have a murder suspect’s license plate number and want to know where the vehicle was last night, but if police want to search a statewide network to find anywhere the vehicle has been in the last 6 months a warrant should be required based on probable cause for searches designed to reconstruct a person’s movement over time. Government should not be able to conduct a retrospective search capable of reconstructing an individual’s movements over an extended period without a warrant based on probable cause. Any query of camera data should specify the cause for the inquiry. In no case should this data be for sale.
- If government is putting camera on every street corner to see who spits on the sidewalk, this amplifies the privacy concerns. Any city should that considers installing such cameras should adhere to the requirement above as well as publicly declare their purpose, not allow facial recognition, not persistently track innocent people, disable audio by default, exclude protected activities, inform the public of their locations, and not allow secret connections to private camera networks.
I want to specifically call out the sale of data. Without consent, it should be illegal for your private data to be purchased. Also, government should not circumvent warrant requirements by purchasing from private companies’ data that it could not constitutionally obtain through direct surveillance.
Ultimately, I support a bill of rights that will protect the rights of every Texan while enabling law enforcement to do its job effectively and lawfully. I don’t care if a bill of rights breaks the Flock business model that relies on Big Data mining and selling your data. I defend privacy over profits. Such a bill of rights might contain the following:
1. No government sale of surveillance data: Government agencies may not sell, monetize, or commercially exploit surveillance data concerning members of the public.
2. No warrantless retrospective tracking: A warrant based on probable cause should be required for a search designed to reconstruct an individual’s movements over a significant period.
3. Purpose limitation: Surveillance systems must have a publicly declared purpose. Data collected for one purpose cannot automatically be repurposed for unrelated investigations.
4. Data minimization: Don’t collect or retain information that isn’t reasonably necessary for the stated purpose.
5. Short retention periods: Non-evidentiary surveillance data should be automatically deleted after a defined period.
6. No facial recognition of innocent people: At minimum, prohibit generalized facial-recognition searches absent particularized legal authorization.
7. No secret camera networks: Government agencies should disclose government-operated cameras and government relationships with private camera networks, subject to narrowly defined exceptions for genuinely sensitive investigations.
8. Private-camera protection: Private citizens retain ownership and control of their recordings. Government requests for access should be governed by clearly defined legal standards.
9. Auditability: Every government search should generate an auditable record identifying who conducted it, when, what database was searched, and the legal/policy basis.
10. Notice and remedy: People who are materially affected by erroneous surveillance-based government action should have a meaningful way to challenge it and obtain correction.
11. No circumvention through private vendors: Government cannot evade statutory or constitutional restrictions by buying substantially equivalent surveillance information from private companies.
12. Independent oversight: Someone outside the police department should periodically audit compliance and publish aggregate statistics.
A comprehensive policy should address, data collection, access and use, aggregation, data sharing policy, retention of data, and auditing.
This is not an exhaustive list of recommendations. I am open to more suggestions. If I am Governor of Texas, I will be committed to protect your life, liberty, and property and oppose Big Brother.
(My technology policy advisor Dan Jacobellis authored this study on AI Video Surveillance Systems: https://danjacobellis.net/_static/policy_surveillance.pdf)